The White House and the New York Times cross swords over GI Bill.

This certainly was a good day to be debating the generous new GI Bill that the Senate wants to attach to the tens of billions of dollars in new war funding that the White House is demanding.

But, if you burned the backyard chicken, or overdid those burgers -- not a bad idea these days, in the era of the dice-rolling USDA -- you may have missed an extraordinary exchange between The New York Times and the White House.

Bush opposes the new educational benefits which the Senate wants to offer those who have served since Sept. 11, 2001. Heck of a stance, the Times says, for a president who has committed hundreds of thousands of men and women to five years of war.

"Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers' lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform,'' the Times opined today. "He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

"So lavish with other people's sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq,'' the Times continued, "Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home. ''

Ouch. And you know the White House felt it.

Because early today, before we saw any disaster declarations about the plight of storm victims, we saw this e-missive from the press secretary's office:

"Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be,'' Dana Perino said in a written statement. "In today's editorial, 'Mr. Bush and the GI Bill,' the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.

"This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue.''

Read on, when the dishes are done, for more of the White House's Memorial Day duel with the Times:

In her statement, the White House press secretary added:

"In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children.

"In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.

"As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.

"There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.

"The president specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.

"Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.''

:President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers' lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people's sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.

Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.

At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs -- one of the soundest investments in human potential -- in the nation's history.

Mr. Bush -- and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain -- have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.

They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying -- as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are -- to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.

Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits -- by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.

This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military. It opposes throwing ever more money at the Pentagon for defense programs that are wasteful and poorly conceived. But as a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill.

By threatening to veto it, Mr. Bush is showing great consistency of misjudgment. Congress should forcefully show how wrong he is by overriding his opposition and spending the money -- an estimated $52 billion over 10 years, a tiniest fraction of the ongoing cost of Mr. Bush's Iraq misadventure.

As partial repayment for the sacrifice of soldiers in a time of war, a new, improved

Comments

The Bush-McCain theory is transparent. Tie benefits to length of service. Real benefits come with the longest service. Of course, not much chance of having to paying the benefits very often, because before most would qualify, they would be dead or too maimed to use them. Bush-McCain can wrap themselves in the flag all they want, but the truth is they are a disgrace to it. The New York Times got it right!

The New York Slime long ago gave up any claim to having truth as one of its hallmarks. The Marxist-Leninist slant of its editorials as well as its news content goes back to the 1930s in its cover-up of Stalin's atrocities up and through its socialist advocacies into the 21st century. Its own internal investigation after the Jason Blair scandals found that the Times' biases were continual sources of trouble. The mistake anyone makes is taking anything the Times prints as anything other than left-wing fiction.

Actually no one needed the Times editorial to come to the same conclusion: The man is an empty suit who could have covered both the lio and tinman roles in the Wizard of Oz: devoid of heart, lacking a brain. Ralph Nader certainly called this right: he's a silver spoon corporation (or corporate shil) impersonating a human being.

It's amazing that Gandolph can spread his? vitriol with absolutely no reference to the issue at hand. Of course we should be rewarding the people who have been serving, and more than serving, this country.

The day the NYSlimes goes bankrupt will be a joyous day in America. The national communist paper continues to sink to new lows. All you cowardly leftists will be happy when the real "empty suit" gets elected, Obama. Jimmy Carter Jr. will be a national disaster with his appeasement politics and a cowardly national defense program.

Hey, " Gandolph ", who are you hiding from, your local draft board!!!? Come on out of Fairyland and join up and help our over-worked, under-paid and disrespected troops by the Incompetent-In-Chief and his Troll, Cheney. Come on, you love America that much, don't you !!? You sure talk a cheap game, put your life, where your mouth is !! Oh, another thing, put away that tired, old Reagan rhetoric, it has lost its voodoo !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Do Bush and McCain believe that American soldiers have more than one life to give their country?

McCain is a pandering traitor to every man and woman risking their lives in Bush's Iraq fiasco and in an undermanned Afghanistan. Evidently, McCain believes that a man and or woman who "survives" their first tour of duty in a war zone hasn't risked "enough" to "deserve" maximum educational benefits.

I am sure Webb and Hagel would be happy to add 'transferability and a link to time of service' if that would make the CIC happy. The sorry fact is that the DOD is in great difficulty re re-enlistments. I don't think there will be many new enlistees just for the educational benefits until they get a read on the next CIC.

Bush is an idiot! The worst President ever. Lie and send our young people to die and the ones that don't, no care, no help! I am surprised he is still in office, wait Darth Chaney would be worse. Bush has killed the Republivan Party. McSame will lose in a landslide. Support our troops and their families!! BRING THEM HOME NOW!!! Pass the New GI Bill and then apologize for sending them into an illiegal war, with no way to win!! Impeach Bush! Try him and Chaney as WAR CRIMINALS!! I would really like to be there when Bush & Chaney meet their Maker!! Hell will be their's for etenity!! If their is a GOD Bush and Chaney are in BIG TROUBLE!!

Memorial Day thoughts;
-
Farewell Frank Dean, Lorin Long, William Lee. The CP wasn't strong enough, the Forrestal was not really safe, the NVA trail you walked down, not secure. Never was or could be.
I thought I knew you, 40 years ago, but I don't know you now. You have lost your lives for a far off Asian mistake so long ago. If only I could see you once more I may lean the secret to your own truth and lost lives. Has my life, anyones life, honored yours?
Fare thee well, Frank, Lorin and Bill.

I tend to agree with some of what the New York Times editorial had to say. I too believe that the Pentagon, The President and Mr. McCain are all afraid of a declining military population during a time of war like we have now. I believe that as long as we are dependant on a volunteer military, we will continue to fall short and make extraordinary, ill-advised, unfair and intolerable demands and sacrifices from our average foot soldier. This country- like every other civilized country in the world demands- needs to reinstate a required time of military subscription for every single ablebodied person between the age of 18 and whatever. How can we have a war that has gone on for over 5 years, without demanding this sacrifice be felt by all. How easy and hypocritical to stand up and say I support the troops and the defense of America; thanks for defending our freedom. Yet, we are not willing to take our place and participate in that military ourselves or from within our families. We want to see freedom defended, as long as we don't have to go; as long as we can continue to pursue our goals for personal satisfaction and gain, unencumbered by a break in our plans, through serving our country "we love" for two years. It's time for all of us, who claim to love this country, and have benefited from it's opportunities and freedoms to demand that a military requirement be reinstated for anyone that is capable of meeting "today's" physical eligibilty requirements. And for any one that can't meet those physical requirements, then they must serve two years of national service. It's time for "equality" in America.

McCain-Graham bill is a better veterans bill since it links the amount of benefits to the amount of service and also makes the educational benefits transferable to spouses. Webbs bill would allow someone to serve three years and get a four year education. The service academies have to put in a minimum of a five-year hitch for their four year-education. Webb's bill would cause needless turnover in today's armed forces.

Active duty military and their families; veterans and their families; and young men and women considering military service should take heed of this out in the open, in your face contempt by the President of the United States and Senator John McCain. Remember that in November when you vote for President.

Yeah, anybody remember when the liberalmarxistleninistAmericahatin' NYT published all those above-the-fold, front-page stories about WMD in Iraq. Then they fooled the President into invading. Obviously trying to bring down the nation by destroying the military. Seems to be working, too...

It is nice to know that the New York "Traitor" Times is looking after the welfare of our service men and women.

But they are still "TRAITORS",they have time and time again given aid and comfort to our enemies. They would prefer we lose than "WIN". They and their ILK have killed our solders, not with bullets but with words. They are responsible for this "WAR" lasting so long.
The death of thousands of solders and tens of thousands of civilians. The blood of those who have died and will die tomorrow are on their "PENS"

The Webb-Hagel bill is timely, wise and compassionate. As a veteran, having received a commission in the Navy after graduating from college with an NROTC scholarship, I am perfectly fine with the concept that GI benefits would potentially eclipse the benefit I received with less of a service commitment. Remember, these folks will have already paid the bill when they receive their benefit. My education was paid for before I ever spent a day in uniform, much less three years.
Also, please consider that most enlistments today are for more than three years, add to that the number of people who enlist for significantly longer in order to work in specialized fields. Very few people will be in a position to take advantage of their benefit in a mere three years.
I would be very happy to see transferability added to the bill, however. Both my husband and I have GI benefits languishing and a daughter ready to start college. After nine elementary schools in twelve years, arguably she's as entitled to the benefit as we are.

Terry's comments that "Webb's bill would cause needless turnover in today's armed forces" implies that conservatives fear that if people have a path to success that does not take them through the military then they will not enlist, or re-up.

So then we should keep as many people as possible out of college so that we can maximize the number who might enlist???

Furthermore, are you slighting our troops, Terry, by inferring that they do not really want to fight for our beloved freedoms, but really have no other future open to them?

The lies the Democrats spread never end. Bush is trying to help Veterans. Under an Obama or Clinton Administration, the U.S. Military will be destroyed. This is another example of how the liberal left wing media hates Republicans. God Bless the U.S and God Bless GWB.

Obama and Clinton have never served this country. They need to join the military before running for President. No way Obama will care about the Men and Women who defend this country. Obama will give this country to the muslims.

McCain-Graham bill is a better veterans bill since it links the amount of benefits to the amount of service and also makes the educational benefits transferable to spouses. Webbs bill would allow someone to serve three years and get a four year education. The service academies have to put in a minimum of a five-year hitch for their four year-education. Webb's bill would cause needless turnover in today's armed forces.

Posted by: Terry | May 26, 2008 8:30 PM

What a pity McCain didn't explain that instead of just railing away on Obama. Did give us a nice glimpse Into the famous bad temper of his though. What a nut!

Republicans have ruined this country. It's not about left wing or right wing, it's about the stupid people in this country who vote Republican - almost always against their own interests. Dumber than dumb. Let's make sure we only ship Republican soldiers to Iraq from now on and give people with common sense, non-Republicans, free tuition for life. They're the only ones worth investing in.

I am SOOOO thankful for the internet and alternative news sources. I just get mad when I read the New York Times and even parts of the Tribune.

The Times itself is infested with Modern Liberals. (The AP is infested with them too.)

I think the biggest problem is one of context. Journalists do a very poor job of providing context. The reason they won't provide context is because they are Modern Liberals (more commonly, but not completely correctly, called lefists).

Basically, they have a template to follow and either they skip the context that changes the template or they don't report the story in the first place.

This is why there are so few stories coming out of Iraq. You wouldn't know there are people there! The press's job is to completely report what is happening and to provide verifiable context. Since the Modern Liberal template is that the war is going bad and that we should leave, they just can't report any good news.

Then, take a story like the GI Bill, and, in order to stick to the template about the military, they actually twist the reporting to suit the template.

If you spend some time reading different sites, you can get an accurate picture of what is happening.

Clearly, the New York Times is very biased, but you just have to compensate when they print something. And laugh. Thanks!

Maybe if the times (not capitalized on purpose) printed a reasoned, well thought out editorial on the subject I would listen to their side. Instead, they did their normal hatchet job, and printed something that looks like it came straight from the writers at MoveOn.Org.

If one wants to ponder whythe credibility of the "dead tree" media has floundered so greatly, all they have to do is read that times editorial, and the question is answered.

As for the GI Bill, why didn't Webb get it introduced a year ago, when he wrote it, instead of waiting until now? If it's such important legislation, why did the Senate leadership leave it sit for a year? The answer; cynical as it may be; is easy, this is an election year, and the Democrats want to look like they suddenly care about the military. They want a talking point. Instead of doing the right thing, and introducing this legislation in 2007, they waited until it would be better campaign fodder.

People will fight, when inspired. This administration rewards the RICH, so why dont they ask those folks to send their children first and put them on the front line. Poor are always last with benefits and first on the front line. This country has made it so that everyone is out trying to be RICH, because that surely is where the REAL benefits are.

"The Times stated, “Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons”… yet President Bush’s well known points in opposition to the legislation… the lack of transferability of benefits to spouses or children… and the lack of greater rewards for continued service in our all volunteer force… were ignored.

Rather, the NY Times chose to ridicule President Bush’s entirely valid additional point… that being that to provide full tuition “and other expenses” for fours years at a public university for three years of service would likely hurt our military by negatively impacting retention.

But then again, this is, after all, the New York Times…. the newspaper that chose to:

* Adamantly and continuously oppose the Patriot Act.
* Publish front page Abu Ghraib stories for 32 consecutive days in May and June of 2004.
* Publicize and criticize a confidential government program to monitor international financial transactions by terrorists, citing undisclosed sources.
* Publicize and criticize a confidential government program to monitor outbound communication to terrorists, citing undisclosed sources.
* Publish, at a reduced rate, an ad by MoveOn.org headlining “General BetrayUs” on the occasion of Gen. Petraeus’ testimony, report and recommendations to the President and Congress last September.

The very same subject editorial brazenly states the obvious lie, “This page strongly supports a larger, sturdier military.”

If that were to be believed, one can hardly imagine the positions that would be taken by the New York Times if it opposed a larger, sturdier military."

Bruce, guess what buddy, every single item you list was absolutely the right thing for the NYT to do. The people and the press have the right to scrutinize , criticize and discuss the actions of our representative government The people and the press do not exist to serve the government or the military.

The NYT's vision of america and yours are different. Your vision of america is a police state where the government is free to operate in secret, and the rights and opinions of the citizen mean nothing. The NYT's vision of america is the founders vision, a represenatative government, watched by a free press, so that the citizen know what it's government is doing, and can then make informed decisions in our democratic process.

Bruce, I really do feel you'd be much happier in someplace like the Peoples Republic of China, where the press is the mouthpeice of the government and the military.

The Graham/McCain/Bush bill would do everything for veterans except reward soldiers for leaving the service instead of giving them more for longer service. $18,000 a year would be fine.
But, little monster Jim Webb the Bush hater had to help liberal socialist universities and Reid and Durbin would not let McCains bill come to the floor.
Webb has a terrible temper for a Benedict Arnold. He is nothing but a Jumpin Jim Jeffords.
The liberal universities want more student/veteran aid to collect more money from taxpayers ultimately hurting new students who are not veterans.
Funny how socialists like Reid, Dickie Durbin and little Jimmy Webb just have to make nasty while the driveby media like the old gray lady aren't smart enough to figure it out.
Wakeup America the Congress run and over run by Jackasses is ruining our great nation. Vote GOP in 08! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Terry thinks spending 3 years in a WAR ZONE, bullets flying, IEDs exploding, and RPGs melting thru armored transport vehicles is not worth a college education. He'd have your son or daughter spending 730 more days before he'd even consider rewarding their sacrifice. Do you think he's ever been in the military?

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)